Gore not becoming President: whose fault?

[Jim Lane]

113. Would you extend that principle?

I wonder which of the following statements you'd agree with:

"If you blame Gore for picking Lieberman, you legitimize Bush."
"If you blame Gore for being a bad campaigner, you legitimize Bush."
"If you blame Gore for losing his home state, you legitimize Bush."
"If you blame Gore for not using Clinton more in the campaign, you legitimize Bush."

The reason I ask is that there's a pronounced double standard going on. People quite freely criticize Gore for choices he made. When someone criticizes Nader for the key choice he made, however, suddenly that line of argument is inadmissible. Nader critics are accused (falsely) of contending that Nader didn't have the right to run, or, as in your post, are accused of legitimizing Bush, by pointing to some factor other than the illegalities. Gore, by contrast, seems to be a free-fire zone -- people who criticize Gore for, e.g., picking Lieberman are never accused of arguing that Gore didn't have the legal right to pick Lieberman, nor are they ever accused of legitimizing Bush. That argument is trotted out only in defense of Nader.